It was only to be expected that Cricket South Africa would formally call upon the "fundamentally-flawed" (their words...not mine) proposal to give Australia, India and England a far greater control of the sport to be withdrawn, arguing that the proposal was against the aims of the ICC constitution.
The FICA, the International cricketers associaion, have now also come out in opposition to these proposals.
The CSA objections, as I read them, basically boil down to them being ****ed off that they're looking at their handouts from BCCI/CA/ECB possibly being cut and losing a bit of power.
But perhaps the question about power needs to be asked - does South Africa really deserve an equal seat at the table when they are trading while insolvent? Shouldn't they be taking direction from the countries which are doing it right and converting on-field success into financial viability?
I haven't read into the FICA objections, but I'm surprised they would oppose moves made to shore up the future financial stability of cricket and get two more teams competing at the top level on a more regular basis.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I made that proposal as 12 International teams in two divisions of six teams each looked to be a logical split.
Yeah, I understand that. I was just making a comment on the sporting aspect, that there is a big gap from the top four to the bottom four with two teams in the middle.
The Test world is not like the County Championship where the teams are artificially balanced by player transfers and relatively balanced ECB funding. Player transfers are off the table (if Ireland gets Test division two status that should help stem the flow of overseas players to England!) and no amount of ICC funding is ever going to get Bangladesh or Zimbabwe out of the bottom.
